Diplomacy related. Do players want something like the Washington Naval Treaty?

[spankahontis]

It took a Pearl harbour event like the Torus Eternal getting bombed to oblivion to trigger a full-scale war.

It was heading towards war regardless because shit-bird Terrans couldn't have their cake and eat it too. The Torus was the excuse they wanted so they could play the victim card... but they had been the aggressors and had been pushing others to the edge before the Torus was bombed.

Let's not try to rewrite history here.

Sorry for late reply.

Terrans were pushing their weight across the galaxy being like the World Police, United States of the Universe.
It was a Cold War environment so it was bound to set off between the Community of Planets and the Terrans/ATF.
Whether the Argon Federation were responsible for supporting Beryll in building the Replicator Fleet that attacked Earth? It was Kho's terrorist attack on the Tourus Eternal that sparked the war.
What is being rewritten here?

Fluff. GalNet BBS used to have "News items". See them N times and you start to ignore them. The missions have "descriptions". See them N times and you start to ignore them.

"Split now more/less aggressive" is the meat. "... because assassination, golf tournament, Dragon Incident, Boso was bored" is mere fluff.

Literally nothing I said had anything to do with the Bulletin Board.
I'm talking about Faction Leaders having different personalities that effect the direction their Faction goes and using Diplomacy to change it, for better or worse.

For example, If you want rid of a faction like the Vigor Syndicate but don't want to deal with them yourself. If you have a Teladi Company CEO who is peaceful and wants a better trade deal with the Vigor.
It would be insanely difficult if not impossible to convince a peacenik like that to war with the Vigor without probable cause; you want someone who is a sabre rattler who is easier to manipulate into war.
So my idea is to remove the leaders that are trouble through assassination or supporting a terrorist group that'll do that for you.
Adds a new layer to diplomacy.

Or make a diplomatic incident more eventful, with a universe wide news announcement with commentary warning people of a war in this area like Avarice with the tide?

[jlehtone]

I'm talking about Faction Leaders having different personalities that effect the direction their Faction goes and using Diplomacy to change it, for better or worse.

For example, If you want rid of a faction like the Vigor Syndicate but don't want to deal with them yourself. If you have a Teladi Company CEO who is peaceful and wants a better trade deal with the Vigor.
It would be insanely difficult if not impossible to convince a peacenik like that to war with the Vigor without probable cause; you want someone who is a sabre rattler who is easier to manipulate into war.

I still say that "leader" is fluff.

You want a diplomatic action that changes aggressiveness of (TEL) faction. Name of the action is irrelevant.

If factions do not have aggressiveness attribute, then that is required too. (Although, they kind of have, the "relations"; use the current diplomatic actions to drop the TEL-VIG to -25.)


You said "easier". As in you want second diplomatic action that, if successful, makes use of the "change relationship" action easier?